No clutching, no shifting, no problem, right? Automatic transmissions have become more than just ubiquitous in recent decades – they’ve become all but the only transmission available in newer cars. But it took decades of development and a number of missteps and half-steps before the first mass-produced fully automatic transmission appeared – Oldsmobile’s Hydra-Matic, which entered production 75 years ago this month.

The challenge of getting the output from any motivational source – be it steam, electric, or internal-combustion power – to the ground had, at times early in the twentieth century, seemed the central predicament within the larger issue of getting the masses to warm up to the automobile. Shifting a manual transmission – no less, an unsynchronized manual transmission – involved a complicated dance of clutching, double-clutching, rev-matching, and shifting, repeated over and over and often involving heavy and intractable gear levers. Some even pointed out how unsafe the system was, noting that shifting a manual transmission takes a hand off the steering wheel, where it could be better used controlling the car’s direction in the days before power steering. And it seemed a common refrain in literature from the time – whether correct or not – that women would generally not own or operate cars with manual transmissions.

Thus ease of operation became one of the main selling aspects for electric vehicles in the 1900s and 1910s: Many, if not all, electrics at the time dispensed with a transmission, requiring only a throttle and brake. Pre-selector transmissions and freewheeling took a bit of the chore out of driving. And many gas-electric hybrids of the day – take, for instance, the Woods Dual Power, the Owen Magnetic, the Walker Dynamotive milk truck, or the Stearns-Knight that Colonel “Ned” Green had built for him – combined internal-combustion engines with generators and electric motors not in an effort to save on fuel, but to dispense with the third pedal to make the vehicles simpler (or in Green’s case, simply possible) to drive.

While those attempts to make gasoline-powered automobiles simple to master didn’t work out or faded away for various reasons, the two-speed planetary transmission that Henry Ford used in his Model T unquestionably did. Planetary – or epicyclic – gearing had been in use since ancient times, and planetary transmissions had been in use long before Ford first used one on his Model K, long enough for some to consider the design outdated when he chose it for the Model T. Ford believed, however, that the planetary transmission’s ease of use (as well as its simplicity and ruggedness) was key to making the Model T a car of the masses; so much, in fact, that he placed the completion of the transmission design at the top of the priority list during the development of the Model T.

Earl A. Thompson

Without a doubt, the planetary transmission helped ensure the Model T’s success – children could and often did drive the cars – but it still proved tricky to learn, especially for those used to more conventional sliding-gear transmissions, and it still couldn’t be considered a true automatic, what with three pedals in addition to a throttle lever and a brake lever that doubled as a gear selector. By the late 1920s and early 1930s, the car-buying public, already familiar with motoring, wanted something even easier to drive. A number of developments would soon come along with the promise of smoother shifting, including Reo’s early 1930s Self-Shifter and Chrysler’s late 1930s Fluid-Drive, both of which still required a clutch pedal for certain operations, but fully automatic shifting wouldn’t come along until the 1940s model year, thanks mostly to a man named Earl A. Thompson.

Thompson, an engineer and inventor from Portland, Oregon, got his foot in the door with General Motors in 1924 with his invention of manual transmission gear synchronizers, a design that finally promised an end to clashing gears and double-clutching and that Cadillac adopted in 1928. He didn’t stop there, however. In about 1932 he gathered a group of GM engineers and – initially under the aegis of Cadillac, but later funded by Oldsmobile – began work on what Oldsmobile would eventually release in June 1937 as the optional Automatic Safety Transmission, which used hydraulic pistons to activate two sets of planetary gears for four forward gears. Considered a semi-automatic, the AST still used a clutch for starting, stopping, and shifting into reverse; Thompson’s team hadn’t yet developed a fluid coupling that would eliminate the clutch.

The true breakthrough of the AST – which ultimately led to the development of the Hydra-Matic – was the hydraulic system that activated the gear changes. Others had developed automatic gear-change mechanisms as well, but used differing means of actuation, whether mechanical (Sturtevant brothers, 1904) or pneumatic (Munro, 1923). Some accounts give credit for the development of hydraulic gear-change actuation to two Brazilian engineers, José Braz Araripe and Fernando Iehly de Lemos. Araripe claimed that he traveled to Detroit at about the time that Thompson began work on the AST and that GM paid him $10,000 for his invention; indeed, Thompson habitually bought up the patents of inventions related to work he pursued, so the work of Araripe and de Lemos could very well have set Thompson on course for developing the Hydra-Matic as it appeared.

Combining a Fluid-Drive-style fluid coupling (not yet a torque converter) to the AST almost seemed a no-brainer after working out the bugs with the latter, and indeed, Thompson’s team followed the project through until they had their fully automatic transmission, the Hydra-Matic, which GM’s Detroit Transmission Division began to produce in May 1939 and then to ship to Oldsmobile that October for use as an option to the standard three-speed manual transmission in 1940 Oldsmobiles.

For the first time in the history of gasoline automobiles, no clutching or manual gear changing was necessary to operate the vehicle. “(Hydra-Matic) is an entirely new development that makes driving so infinitely simple and easy as to be almost unbelievable,” Oldsmobile announced in its brochures, which touted no stalling, no bucking when starting, instant acceleration on tap, improved getaway from stops, even flow of power at all speeds, better traction on snow and ice, and less fatigue from driving.

As Aaron Severson of Ate Up With Motor pointed out in his history of the Hydra-Matic, the transmission used a shifter quadrant with just four positions: Neutral, Drive, Low, and Reverse. In Low, the transmission would use only its first two gears, while Drive would use only first, third, and fourth gears; the only way to use all four gears would be to start out in Low and then shift to Drive after winding out second.

The Hydra-Matic did have its problems – perhaps most noteworthy a jerky shift from second to third that earned it the nickname “Hydra-Jerk” – but it also proved itself well over the following years. Cadillac began to offer it as an option for the 1941 model year and then adapted it for use in M-5 tanks during World War II. After the war, Pontiac began offering the Hydra-Matic (Buick and Chevrolet preferred to forego the Hydra-Matic for their respective automatic transmissions, the Dynaflow and the Powerglide), followed by a number of other companies: Nash, Hudson, Kaiser-Frazer, Willys, Rolls-Royce and Bentley, and even Lincoln. It was the increasing popularity of the Hydra-Matic that led General Motors to act swiftly to lease and later purchase the Willow Run assembly plant from Kaiser following the devastating 1953 fire that swept through the plant in Livonia, Michigan, that built the transmissions.

More importantly, though, the Hydra-Matic introduced the car-buying public to the automatic transmission, paving the way not only for future refinements of the technology, but also for more people to take the wheel and discover the independence and mobility that comes with owning a car.

Billsays:

May 16, 2014 9:39 am

Scott Csays:

May 16, 2014 10:43 am

Bill, I have a customer that has two kids in their late 20’s. His wife and the kids have NEVER driven a stick shift. The look on their faces when I drove a 1969 Chevy truck over with a 3 on the tree…they thought it was an automatic…!

Seansays:

May 16, 2014 12:40 pm

I have a 1963 Ford Falcon Futura Convertible with a manual (standard) shift. Two years ago, I had to have it towed from my garage to the shop for a couple of new tires, and the guy with the tow truck got in my car, looked at the clutch, then at the shift which is on the column, and said “How do you put this in ‘Park’?” I then had to teach him … to add insult to injury, his tow truck was a automatic, and he had never driven a standard shift. I always say that the automatic transmission was the first innovation to create lazy drivers.

May 16, 2014 11:11 am

benjisays:

May 16, 2014 11:48 am

Danny Plotkinsays:

May 16, 2014 10:00 am

The original Hydra-Matic was a very complicated transmission that required exact timing of internal operations as clutches and bands had to release and/or apply simultaneously to affect a gear change. This made band adjustments and throttle rod adjustments critical in ironing the “jerk” out of the 2nd-3rd shift.

The Hydra Matic used a fluid coupling rather than a torque converter, the difference being a torque converters stator in-between the turbine and impeller which provides the torque multiplication and efficiency at launch they are known for.

Fluid couplings on the other hand are not very efficient at launch requiring a very short first gear. This is why in addition to the “jerky shifting” was a first to second shift that occurred in some cases before the car seemed to have made two revolutions of its wheels. It’s also why the Hydra Matic was a 4-speed, as that short first gear was needed to get things moving given the inherent slip of a fluid coupling.

While inefficient at launch, the Hydra Matic’s fluid coupling was far more efficient at cruising speed than a torque converter. Packard realized this and added a direct lock-up torque converter to its Ultramatic in 1949.

No domestic maker would follow Packard with a lock up converter until Chrysler in the late 1970’s or early 80’s. Meanwhile Ford, Chrysler, Chevy & Buick soldered on with torque converter automatics with the Fordomatic (actually a Borg-Warner unit), Powerflite, Powerglide and Dynaflow respectively.

The Hydra Matic received a series of improvements during its production run and the later units (53-55) shifted much smoother than the early ones did.

In 1956 the Hydra Matic was completely redesigned so that all but one shift (2nd to 3rd) was accomplished by flushing and filling a second fluid coupling behind the first one, eliminating the entire front clutch unit for a simple sprag. All bands carrying torque were eliminated so no band adjustments were necessary or possible. There was now only one friction shift.

The effect was a first to second shift that “slid” in before you noticed (still a very short gear because of the lack of a torque converter) a second to third using conventional clutches that was a little better than the old Hydra-Matic, and a third to fourth that occurred as fast and as smooth as pouring cold honey on your corn bread. Efficient? Hardly. Smooth? As a baby’s arce.

The 1956 introduction of the “controlled coupling Hydra-Matic” did not go so well. There was a myriad of updates made and most of these transmissions eventually came back to dealers for new front coupling covers, spaghetti seals, and reverse cone clutches. By 1958 they were fairly well straightened out.

But by 58 the Hydra Matic was at a competitive disadvantage. Chrysler’s Torqueflight, released in mid 1956 was regarded as a superior unit. Ford’s CruiseOmatic was a close knockoff of the Torquelight. Studebaker was using a similar Borg warner unit, and the Dynaflow, while a paragon of inefficiency was nevertheless a pleasure to use in a big powerful Buick.

The THM 400 (Turbo Hydra-Matic) released in 1964 in Buick & Cadillac cars was pretty much lifted from the Chrysler design, as by then the flush ‘N fill Hydra-Matic had become long in the tooth.

Keith Ssays:

May 16, 2014 12:48 pm

Dansays:

May 20, 2014 2:34 am

How about the “no-speed” GM automatics, the Dynaflo’s and the Turboglides. Non-shifting automatics were gone at GM after 1963. Some later became non-shifting, without intention, like the disasterous THM200 and the intentional non-automatic shifting Torque Drive 2-speed. Ford did a similar thing with their 3-speed C-4S.

Danny Plotkinsays:

May 20, 2014 10:07 am

Dan is on to something here, the non-shifters would make a great story (hear that Daniel Strohl?)

I own a 60 Buick with “Twin Turbine” the name was new, the transmission was not. I guess by 1960 Dynaflow sounded corny. Today we would call it Hydrostatic drive such as found on snow mobiles and lawn tractors.

Chevy and Buick had an even more complicated non-shifters, the former “Turboglide” from 57-61 and the latter “Triple Turbine Dynaflow” from 58-59.

These were similar designs in which the 3 turbines were each splined to a separate co-axle shaft connected to a separate set of planetary gears. The idea was to give better off-the-line performance than the powerglide or Dynaflow each of which essentially started out in direct drive (unless held in low-which many a drag racing kid did) depending upon the torque multiplication of the converter to make up for the tall ratio.

It is said that Chevy buyers in particular found a non-shifting automatic disconcerting. It was expensive and at first troublesome. Turboglide & Triple Turbine were GM’s first aluminum cased transmissions. The used a switch pitch on the stator blades to alter converter stall speed for what amounted to a half-assed passing gear.

Even worse was the “grade retard” detent on the selector that many a driver confused with “low gear” which it certainly was not. With no low gear on either of these boxes “Grade Retard” redirected fluid flow to create turbulence in the converter for what amounted to a half assed engine brake.

Today you might occasionally run across an Impala or a Buick with one of these transmissions, you can tell if it has “G” or “GR” on the gear selector indicator.

Be forewarned however that even good antique car transmission shops do not want to touch either of these units. Parts availability is limited and so is rebuilding experience, so if you must have one make sure it works.

Dansays:

May 20, 2014 11:58 am

Danny and everyone, the Turboglide was introduced in 1957, rarely seen, but usually behind the 283 small-block that year. Starting in 1958, with the introduction of the “W” big-block 348, the TG was most commonly used behind that engine. Most Chevys originally equiped with TurboGlides were changed over to the old cast iron PowerGlides, even by the dealers. Those rare ones that were not changed over were later the “bargain basement” cars or went to the scrappers. A few years back when I was building PowerGlides for racing and went looking for spares. I went to a friend’s transmission shop just in time as he had sold his entire inventory of aluminum PG’s. Luckily they hadn’t been shipped out yet and he gave me a couple pre-66 PG’s that had rear pumps so that we could push-start when needed. He also found a couple TG’s in the pile. If he had a nuclear bomb, with his anger at finding them, the whole world would have been blown up. On the same trip, I got a couple ST300 direct drums for their lager clutch capacity for use in my racing PG’s. None of my PG’s ever failed to complete a race.

Stevesays:

January 2, 2016 1:40 am

I had a 1968 Mercury Montego with a 302 and a c4 transmission. The transmission started to slip at 36,000 miles. I managed another year without a complete failure, but had no confidence in driving too far out of town.

Dansays:

May 16, 2014 2:59 pm

The next generation HydraMatic was known as “Jetaway” in the 50’s. Most non-GM luxury car brands such as Packard, Lincoln and Rolls-Royce, etc., used the HydraMatic until they used something else. Even Nash used it! I believe that Rolls/Bentley was the last to use the Jetaway in 1967. After that, they switched to the TH400. Packard began using their Ultramatic(Detroit Gear) and later added a lock-up clutch to their torque converter, shifting Ultramatic.. Other makes used this Detroit Gear transmission such as Jaguar and Studebaker. Detroit Gear became Borg-Warner. The Ford-O-Matic was a 3-speed automatic which normally used only 2nd and 3rd gears, unless the throttle was depressed to the floor or “Lo” was selected. The Ford-O-Matic was upgraded for 1958 and re-named the Cruise-O-Matic. This update allowed the transmision to use all 3 gears when in the “Drive” , D1 position bu retained 2-speed operation in the “D2” position. AMC also followed suit with their Flash-O-Matic version. Studebaker retained the normal 2-speed only useage, dropped the lock-up feature and in 1963 added a new 2nd gear position to the “D” and re-labeled “L” position to “1”.

Danny Plotkinsays:

May 16, 2014 5:15 pm

Dan: That is mostly correct, but it is important to note that the heavily revised Hydramatic that came out in 56 (what some of us call with affection “flush and fill”) was never used outside GM.

The independents & Lincoln used the original Hydramatic as from time to time updated; as did Rolls Royce.

Speaking of Rolls Royce, it licensed and manufactured its own version of the original Hydramatic in the UK. The story goes that Rolls engineers couldn’t bring themselves to build the Yankee transmission without improvement as this was a transmission designed to be used in the lesser Cadillac. The manufacturing processes were tinkered with by extra plating and polishing of internal parts presumably to result in smoother, quieter operation befitting a Rolls Royce.

The initial prototype units didn’t work, so they went back to the GM prints.

Rolls used the old Hydramatic tuntil 1967 in the US and until 70 in the UK. Afterwards they imported the US built THM 400.

Dansays:

May 20, 2014 2:46 am

Sorry, Detroit Gear was a part of Borg Warner and a company that Studebaker developed their own first auto trans, which was a 3-speed with a lock-up torque converter. To save money, Studebaker stopped using it and instead used Borg-Warner’s 3-speed auto until they went to Chrysler’s Torqflite in the 70’s. Packard DID manufacture their own auto trans(similar to the DG) and some say that it was the final nail in the coffin for Packard. Studebaker and Nash used the Packard V-8 with Ultramatic in their top-of-the-line cars. Studebaker had their own V-8 in 1951, predating the Packard V-8. Nash didn’t have their own V-8 until they introduced the 287 in the late-50’s.

Dansays:

May 20, 2014 11:43 am

What’s funny, Ford continued to use those Borg-Warner automatics into the late-70’s. After 1957, a sprag clutch was added to make the a/t a true 3-speed and was renamed Cruise-O-Matic. These had a “dual-drive” providing 1st or 2nd gear starts with automatic shifting. Starting in 1967, the “dual-drive” was discontinued and Ford again renamed all it’s transmissions “Select Shift” Cruise-O-Matics. It offered full manual control of 1st and 2nd gears, including 2nd gear starts, making it the first fully manually capable operating 3-speed transmissions. The B-W based a/t’s were known as “Cast Iron” Cruise-O-Matics after Fords introduction of the aluminum cased 2-speed automatic, for the 1960 model year, using the resurrected Ford-O-Matic name and the 1964 aluminum cased C-4 automatic, both transmissions developed for the Falcon line, but used in other applications behind six cylinder and small V-8’s. Interestingly, I guess Ford thought that Edsel buyers might be confused by an extra gear position so they didn’t offer a Cruise-O-Matic until the 1960 short final model year for Edsel.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

May 20, 2014 3:14 pm

As Studebaker closed their doors in March 1966, they did not have a opportunity to use the Chrysler Torqueflite.

Studebaker used the Packard V8 only one year and in only one car, the 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk. In 1957 and 1958, the Golden Hawk, and the badge engineered Packard sedans, wagons, and Packard Hawk used the Studebaker 289 supercharged with a Mcculloch blower.

Once the bugs were worked out, the Packard Ultramatic was a good unit. The final nail in Packard’s coffin was their merger with financially ailing Studebaker and the decision by Studebaker-Packard management to get rid of the entire (real) Packard line in favor of badge engineered Packards using Studebaker bodies and different trim.

Dansays:

May 20, 2014 3:59 pm

Sorry, again. I meant that AMC switched to Torqflite in the 70’s. True, Studebaker went belly-up in 1966. The final series of Studebakers used Chevrolet engines and PowerGlide(or manual) transmissions. The last Studebaker 289’s were used in the Avanti’s, which kinda/sorta never officially ended production until the mid-80’s, for the most part operating out of the South Bend factory. The last of the Avanti’s, for now, were Camaros with a nose and tail job.

Doug Lsays:

May 17, 2014 12:11 am

Dan: I can’t vouch for the’67 Rolls but I know the ’65 was still running the DualRange HydraMatic with no park position evident(parked in R). The original HydraMatic evolved from 1939 through 1951, then became the Dual Range HydraMatic and , in 1956 added the Jetaway (in Oldsmobile; StratoFlight (?) in Pontiac) while retaining the earlier version in some models for that year only. Lots of information in this thread!

Dansays:

May 20, 2014 2:52 am

Doug, the Phantoms continued to use the HydraMatic and when the new Silver Shadow was introduced, the latest one I saw with the HM was 1967. The electric gear selector was added to the side of the steering column. The quadrants were N-4-3-2-R. With the introduction of the THM400, the electric gear selector was integrated into the steering column and the quadrants were changed to P-R-N-D-I-L.

geomechssays:

May 16, 2014 3:04 pm

Lots of good info, Danny. I helped a friend restore a ’41 Cadillac 75 and we found that it wouldn’t engage reverse unless we put it in Drive or Low and then hit Reverse real fast. There was a sprag that locked up the reverse pack (updated to a band after the war) and it would grind if you selected R first. We found out that the engine was idling too fast. A well-seasoned retired Cadillac mechanic told us to set the idle as slow as we could and still hold vacuum. At under 500 rpm we could get it (cold) but it still clicked hot. I got the idle down to about 450 but my friend didn’t like it that slow so he opted to use the first method of Low-to-Reverse instead. Worked fine.

Dansays:

May 16, 2014 6:17 pm

The HydraMatics used a sliding idler gear for reverse like the later HondaMatics. If the idle is too high you will get a grind or clunk shifting to reverse. Reverse gear is what you might call a “hard shift”. Shifting to Lo first stops that section of the trans so that the reverse idler can slide into place easier. Before they added a “Park” position to the HydraMatic, placing the shifter into Reverse before you turned the engine off locked the trans up. You still had to move the shift lever to neutral to start the engine.

Bryan Gsays:

May 17, 2014 11:24 pm

I briefly owned a 50 Cadillac and that reverse issue was one thing I noted. That car ran poorly and trying to keep it revving enough to run while getting it into reverse made for plenty of frustration.

Billsays:

May 16, 2014 11:14 am

Paul, NYCsays:

May 16, 2014 12:45 pm

Now, just wait a minute. I’m not knocking manual transmission. I learned to drive on one and grew up in a house where automatics were viewed with suspicions and take every opportunity to drive one when I have a chance.

May 16, 2014 1:05 pm

Kevinsays:

May 16, 2014 6:24 pm

Agreed, Ken. I have a stick Subaru that’s a pleasure to drive most anywhere except in the NYC area. My left leg actually aches when driving – or should I say schlepping – on the Cross Bronx Expressway!

Thomas Robinsonsays:

May 16, 2014 10:11 am

Rusgcsays:

May 16, 2014 11:51 am

I agree…this article is very informative. I grew up in the 50’s, during the transition from manual to automatics. I learned to drive manual’s, still prefer the fun factor but realistically the latest automatics out perform them

JohnnyGearboxsays:

May 16, 2014 10:17 am

The automatic era inadvertently created a dilemma for the car manufacturers’…more torque was needed to get the job done. It’s not a coincidence that ‘big power’ started showing up during this time…some interesting engine swaps started getting done post-war, which is responsible for the beginning of the ‘hot rod’ era…there’s a bright side to everything!

Bill Asays:

May 16, 2014 6:10 pm

Dennis Msays:

May 16, 2014 10:50 am

As Danny said above, the Hydra-Matic had a very short first gear – perfect for launching off the line at the drag strip.

The only time my ’57 Olds 88 coupe lost in class in the quarter mile was by a ’57 Chevy that made his shifts right alongside me! I did not have the cash to put up for a protest of the Hydra-Matic illegally replacing the 2 speed Power Glide in the Chevy.

Big Tonysays:

May 16, 2014 12:00 pm

The guy in the Chevy had a B&M stick hydro, a beefded 56 Olds Hydramatic he could shift manually like a 4 speed with no clutch.
I had one in a 55 Chevy B/Gas behind a 331″ 327. Shift manually 1st through 4th and shift when the tach redlined. Faster, more positive shifts than with a manual 4 speed and never a missed shift.

Dennis Msays:

May 16, 2014 7:15 pm

Doug Lsays:

May 17, 2014 12:02 am

Dennis M: Urban legend had a 1960 El Camino very successfully running a 348/335hp with a HydraMatic in stock class due to the availability of the Hydro in trucks; stretching the rule a bit. NHRA closed the loophole quickly stating the combination had to be factory available.

Don McArthursays:

May 16, 2014 10:51 am

Daimler had a “fluid flywheel” in 1930, what took GM so long to adapt it to the “Automatic Safety Transmission”? It seems to me that I read in Special Interest Autos many years ago that that transmission was first introduced in the ’37 or ’38 Buick, rather than Olds. Any truth to that?

Daniel Strohlsays:

May 16, 2014 11:08 am

I didn’t want to get too much into the AST, but it was indeed used – one year only, 1938 – in Buicks. And Buick built the AST for Oldsmobile because Buick had the excess plant capacity at the time and Oldsmobile didn’t.

Howard Arbituresays:

May 16, 2014 10:51 am

Thanks to Mr. Plotkin for touching on the Packard “Ultramatic”. While the story of the Hydra-Matic is an interesting one, and probably did more for the recruitment of women to driving( along with power steering) the Ultramatic deserves honorable mention. Development on the Ultramatic began in the mid ’30’s, but was interrupted by WW2. After the war, it was pushed forward, and became a $199 dollar option in 1949. A hefty price back then, $1932.50 in today’s money. It claimed to be the only automatic designed totally “in house” at the time. I had the Ultramatic in our 1950 Packard, and after it’s 30 year slumber, all I did was change the oil, and it worked great, although, a Hydra-Matic equipped vehicle would beat the pants off our Packard, but it was a welcome change from the Electromatic Clutch option of previous Packards. (p.s. facts courtesy of Wiki, I’m not that smart.)

Olddavidsays:

May 16, 2014 10:59 am

Aaron at AUWM is my go-to guy for historic accuracy. His research is as well documented as a collegiate thesis and equally original. You guys could do worse than add him to Hemmings as an in-house documentarian. That he keeps his site up and going speaks to his determination. The automotive industry should fund both AUWM and Hemmings as for the greater good. They have a charge on every invoice for advertising, why not goodwill?

Olddavidsays:

May 16, 2014 11:06 am

I got so caught up in my editorial fervor that I forgot to comment on my HydraMatic experiences. I have always looked at automatics as a sort of automotive alchemy – the fluid and torque converter with planetary gears baffles me. I had a friend who understood it, and we got a NOS Hydramatic which he modified somehow to handle our full-race (remember that term?) 327 we put in a 55 Chev 2dr wagon. With 4.10 gears and dual quads, we could pop the front wheels off of the ground. That heavy old beast would do 12.2/107 and we had few competitors in our class. He rightfully regarded that transmission as his masterpiece. He put it in a 57 BelAir and I never did learn what he did to it to make it so strong.

Danny Plotkinsays:

May 16, 2014 12:03 pm

thefatkidsays:

May 16, 2014 11:05 am

I see it as the beginning of the end. With each passing model year they continue to take the driver out of the car. Hey Scott C can you imagine when in 10 years if you asked someone to parallel park your truck. They’d spend 20 minutes looking for the parallel park button, and then tell you can’t be done when they don’t find it. Keep the art of driving alive, drive an old car today!

Mark Axensays:

May 16, 2014 12:26 pm

Pretty much agree. Today you need to be more of an electronics technician than mechanic. I’m fairly baffled when looking under the hood of my VW Tiguan daily – driver. About the only things I can do are top-off oil, coolant, and washer fluid levels. SO, … imagine my delight with my ‘new’ 1950 Chevy Styleline Special 2 door sedan, recently bought from Joe’s Old Cars via Hemming’s. Simple to work on, easy access to everything, and readily available parts and services. It’s my first ‘old car’, and the adventure begins…

ShiftMannsays:

May 16, 2014 2:20 pm

I disagree somewhat. Automatics are almost mandatory in big horsepower applications to prevent scattered parts and to provide consistency. Modern automatics can provide ample performance, fun, and efficiency.

In my opinion, the real beginning of the end is the massive proliferation of Front-Wheel-Drive “disposa-cars” that are so hard to work on that they aren’t worth fixing, not to mention the fact that most of them are so boring that no one will shed a tear when they are crushed and shredded. Forty years from now, I can hardly imagine anyone bothering to restore any of today’s vehicles other than trucks, Mustangs, Camaros, or the thankfully wider variety of RWD offerings that Chrysler has given us.

Higginssays:

May 16, 2014 11:07 am

Auto trans are fine on the family sedan but I sure miss having a manual on my pickup.I always had manuals on trucks because in the winter it is so much easier to control them in the snow. I bought a new GMC truck in 20008 and to my dismay no manual was available.

Don Willmottsays:

May 17, 2014 10:41 pm

I have a 2006 Chevy Silverado, 4.8, 5-speed stick short box that I hope will run forever. With non- ethanol it gets 21 MPG and is a 4-wheel drive. I hope Chevy brings back the manual, two Chevy mechanics had told me it is a well built transmission. I also like it in the snow, plus it sounds good and is fun to drive.

benjisays:

May 16, 2014 11:13 am

i see nothing here about the Buick auto trans in 1937 38. we had one and at the museum in Reno has one and a board that says first car with auto trans. every one i know says Buick was the first not Olds. whats up with that.

whiterock guysays:

May 18, 2014 1:04 am

You should read the several references to the 1938 Buick having a semi-automatic with a clutch pedal– not a fully automatic transmission like the Hydra-Matic which came out first in the 1940 Olds as an option.

May 16, 2014 11:13 am

Kensays:

May 16, 2014 2:02 pm

MONT Jimsays:

May 19, 2014 10:21 pm

Not to ignore the 1927-40 LaSalles, I.e,1937-40 3 speed trans was the most sought afer standard transmissions until the 4 speeds ? IN MY 1/4 MILE RACES , NOTHING IN A “BROAD” CLASS COULD COMPETE UNTIL THE HI-REV SHORT STROCK MOTORS IN THE LATE 50S !

Doug Bartholomewsays:

May 16, 2014 11:14 am

I had a two-tone flare red over desert sand ’54 Olds Holiday 88 coupe with a 4-speed Hydramatic transmission. The car had only a 2-barrel carb, but it moved out as fast as any cars today, and often quicker. Some guy in a Mustang tried to beat me onto a freeway ramp and I dusted him without even mashing the pedal to the floor. When he saw that monster Olds moving to take the lane, I think he got the message to get the heck out of the way. The first owner from whom I bought it had completely restored the csr in the mid-’70s, adding a Detroit locker rear end, air shocks in the rear, and Michelin blackwall radials. This thing cornered solid, and cruised at 75 mph. This was a 50s car with ’90s manners. For my money, the Hydramatic was by far the best transmission out there in the mid-50s.

mr61impalasays:

May 18, 2014 12:43 pm

Another great transmission of that era is the Chrysler Torqueflite which was used, virtually unchanged, for decades. With OD and other upgrades this design was in still use through 2006 behind Cummins 5.9L turbo diesels.

GM copied this outstanding design in the mid sixties. Known originally as the TurboHydramatic 400 is was later designated 3L80 and eventually, with the addition of upgrades including OD and electronic control, 4L80E. This TorqueFlite clone was used in many large GM and trucks from it’s release until the advent of the 6L90E about 5 years ago.

Don in Michsays:

May 16, 2014 11:17 am

Being a complete Ford guy for 67 years, I thought I knew a lot of their history. I was shocked to find out Ford had released an automatic trans in 1942. At the Ford V8 museum in Auburn they have the only remaining example of Fords first auto trans. I think they said only 300 were sold, and then recalled, and replaced with manual transmissions. The dealer would replace the entire engine and trans, and send the automatic back to Dearborn to be destroyed. One engine and trans combo never got shipped from the dealership.

GARY Gsays:

May 16, 2014 11:31 am

My 2 daughters, now 25 and 27 both learned on stick shift. My wife and I wouldn’t have had any other way. Later, they bought their own first cars and said they could hardly wait to have automatics like their friends. Now, they both have gotten rid of those automatic cars and have bought really cool stick shift cars. They both agree, now they like shifting. Interesting, isn’t it ?

Jan Stubbssays:

May 16, 2014 11:46 am

I had a ’55 Pontiac with Hydramatic. That short 1st gear was great off-the-line. I swapped the engine for a slightly hopped ’57 motor from a wrecked Hiway Patrol car. Then when the transmission stopped shifting into 3rd, I ordered a Dragamatic conversion from a company in Burbank. After a week my speed shop found out they had run to Mexico with my transmission and my money. He suggested B&M Hydro conversion which allowed manual shifting. Combined with 4.10 gears, sticky tires, and loose front shocks I could do a wheely! My 1st win at the drags, and I was slightly famous at Mel’s drive-in In downtown Sacramento, until some jealous creep followed me home and stole my car.

Big Tonysays:

May 16, 2014 11:48 am

B&M Stick Hydros a ’56 Olds beefed hydro could be manually shifted from 1st through 4th and never shifting above the selected gear or if you started in 4th it would automatically shift 1st through 4th. In essence a 4 speed without a clutch.

Normsays:

May 16, 2014 12:25 pm

I think we are doing a disservice by not teaching kids in driver’s ed to drive a stick shift. My dad wanted nothing to do with an automatic, and when he finally got one, he kept reaching for the clutch, and got so mad that he threatened to take the car back and get a stick and it was the only one he ever owned.

Dansays:

May 16, 2014 12:39 pm

As usual, when any of the Hemmings publications write about automatic transmissions, are full of errors and misconceptions. The longer the article, the more chance there is for errors. One of the first things that I noticed was the statement that Buick and Chevrolet used their respective “automatics” instead of the Hydra-Matic. The DynaFlow(flush and go) and the PowerGlide(slip ‘n’ slide), were introduced years after the HydraMatic. In fact, even after Chevrolet had introduced the PowerGlide, when they began offer an automatic in their truck line, they used the then current “Jetaway” HydraMatic . The clone GMC truck division continued to use the HydraMatic until the transmission was no longer being produced. The series 1 HydraMatic was in production until the HydraMatic factory burned down. When the factory was rebuilt, a new HydraMatic was introduced, the Jetaway. In the 60’s, a new HydraMatic was introduced, RotoHydramatic, a 3-speed unit that dumped it’s fluid coupling during the 1-2 shift and locking the transmission so it had a bang into 3rd. When the Super Turbine 400 was introduced in 1964, the Jetaway and Roto HydraMatics were gone forever giving way to the new Turbo Hydramatics, with the Power Glides and the Super Turbine 300 2-speed automatics soldiering on for a few more years.

Dansays:

May 16, 2014 6:04 pm

Danny, the Roto Hydramatic(Slim Jim) in two different versions, was indeed used in Oldsmobiles and junior full-sized Pontiacs through 1963. The smaller Pontiacs, as well as the Oldsmobiles switched to the 2-speed ST 300. The HydraMatic(Jetaway) was used in the big Pontiacs through 1964 and as you state, the big Caddy’s. In 1964, the DeVille Caddy’s and big Buicks used the new ST 400 and in it’s first year, did not have a 2nd gear position. The “ST”, Super Turbine, was a leftover Dynaflow idea, a variable pitch stator. The Caddy did not have that VP stator and the other makes that used the ST 300 didn’t use it either. If my memory is correct, the smaller Roto Hydramatic was a 2-speed. In 1965, when they added the 2nd gear position to the 400, it was then known as the Turbo Hydramatic. The Buicks used the variable pitch stator in both the 400 and 300 series transmission through 1967 and were still known as Super Turbines. After 1967, all 2-speed GM automatics were Powerglides and were available until the middle of 1971.

Doug Lsays:

May 16, 2014 11:51 pm

Danny: You’re correct that the “slim Jim” Roto-HydraMatic 4-S was used from 1961 but through 1964. After the various bug were worked out, it wasn’t too bad but when the Turbo 400 arrived, it became a whole new ball game. The 1956 model year had both the Dual Range HydraMatic and the Jetaway available in Olds and Pontiac in the lesser models.

Bob Croslinsays:

May 17, 2014 11:45 am

My dad had a 61 Olds with the Slim Jim Roto-hydramatic in the late 60’s. One day it decided to quit shifting. His mechanic told him the Slim Jim wasn’t worth rebuilding and if he had to, he’d get a different trans from a bone yard to swap into it rather than waste time and money rebuilding. But, he said, “there’s a trick you can try first. If the trans bows, you’re not out anything except a tow.” The trick was to put it in reverse and back it up to almost 30 mph, then slam it into low and floor it. I did it in front of our house and the noise it made was terrible, but it worked. It shifted smooth as glass.
He quickly dumped it on a nice ’65 Buick Electra 225.

Keith Ssays:

May 16, 2014 12:49 pm

Don Willmottsays:

May 17, 2014 10:54 pm

We have a 305 H.P. 2014 Impala that is so far a great car but would be a blast with a 5 or 6 speed stick. Knowing which gear you are in plus the instant torque and response with a stick would set it apart from the LaCrosse and XTS Caddy that share the same engine and chassis.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

May 16, 2014 1:35 pm

I too questioned why driver’s training does not include classes in manual transmission operation.

The reply I received was that it is too distracting to learn how to operate a manual, and how to properly operate a vehicle simultaneously. Once a person learns to drive, they may then be taught how to operate a manual.

It may soon be a moot point. At the rate the government is getting its’ hands in the auto driving business, in a few years, no one will be operating a car…just get in the ‘vehicle pod,’ select a destination, and go along for the ride. BOORRRIIINNNG!

GARY Gsays:

May 16, 2014 2:26 pm

Hey Phantom, That reply they gave you is a bunch of horse poop. Like I said above, I started both daughters on manual. Big open parking lot, all day….just starting and stopping, starting and stopping. Young minds pick things up quick. Now they are so delighted to have their 5 speeds and their friends are all jealous !

Doug Lsays:

May 16, 2014 11:43 pm

Gary: Kudos for teaching your daughters the vagaries of a clutch. I did the same with my oldest daughter using a Jeep CJ7 in 4wd/low so as to eliminate the frustrating engine kill. The skill has proven quite valuable to her although she drives an automatic today.

Dansays:

May 16, 2014 5:04 pm

Richardovillesays:

May 17, 2014 2:05 am

The manually shifted “automatic” is now the preferred transmission of many motorsports. The Powerglide, or a derivative, is most common transmission currently used in the most NHRA classes other than Fuel, Alcohol, and many stock classes. For quite a while, there has been a niche aftermarket industry based upon the Powerglide, producing everything from planetaries in varying ratios to cases requiring no safety shielding because it’s built into the case. There are now aftermarket TH400 cases available. Not only popular in Drag Racing but likely the most popular transmission in many off-road (BAJA, SCORE, Etc.) classes.

Fredsays:

May 17, 2014 5:36 pm

Homer R. Pankeysays:

May 16, 2014 3:58 pm

While in high school, 1950 to 1954, I had a 1939 4 door Olds. While searching for some parts in our local junkyard I found a 1939 Olds coupe. While getting the clock out of the glove box door I was surprised to notice that the car had a Hydra-Matic indicator on the steering column and no clutch pedal. Based upon this personal observation I know that the Hydra-Matic transmission was introduced prior to 1940.

Dansays:

May 16, 2014 4:59 pm

Homer, in an auto class that I took decades ago, there was an older fellow in the class. We were studying automatic transmissions and when we were exploring the HydraMatic and it’s 1940 introduction, he said that he bought a new 1939 Olds in the fall of 1938 and it was equipped with a HydraMatic. I’ve heard this from other ‘old timers’ and have seen one 1939 Olds with a HydraMatic. That’s why I said that when Hemmings has something about automatic transmissions, it is often incorrect.

Mood- Osays:

May 16, 2014 5:11 pm

Standard trans is fun once in a while for me…My daily driver is an ’02 2500HD 8.1 5 spd Allison auto 4×4
My “fun” truck is a ’74 IH Scout II 345ci 4 speed 4×4 6″ lift soa
Our Family wagon is an ’06 Escalade ESV 6.0 4 spd auto, I wish it had the 6 spd auto though…
As you all can tell, We don’t worry much about fuel mileage! LOL
PS In the process of restomoding a ’64 Lemans convertible… 455 700r4 3.55 the list goes on…

THGDriversays:

May 16, 2014 6:04 pm

I was taught how to drive in a 1959 Plymouth Belvedere pushbutton automatic. I wont say what make my first car was but it was a 3 speed stick shift. I learned how to drive it after coasting down the hill to a train station parking lot near my home.

Glad I did that as I wound up making a very good living driving a 1948 12 speed Autocar wrecker and a 10 speed Mack diesel.

mark lestersays:

May 16, 2014 6:31 pm

Oldsmobile dealers at the time of automatic transmission introduction were required to stock a complete transmission. Cars requiring tranny repairs had them replaced, complete units were shipped back to the factory for repair.
My family received the olds franchise in 1939, had chevy since 1924.
Before chevy, they had chrysler.
Nothing like growing up in the auto business !

Allansays:

May 17, 2014 12:37 am

My son has a ’13 Ford Focus ST with a 6 speed manual. What a blast that car is to drive! If it were automatic, it would be just another Dullsville Econobox (although one with some extra power). I drag race a ’67 289 Cougar with a 4 speed stick and it has earned me a shelf full of trophies. Sure, an auto would be more consistent, but not nearly the fun!
Automatics are for grannies and men who think like grannies! I’m old enough to be (and am) a gramps (age 70), but I refuse to think like one!

Scott Thomsonsays:

May 17, 2014 2:18 am

All the historic stuff about autos is cool. However, I’ve been driving for 48 years, and have owned upwards of 20 vehicles. Only one of them has had an automatic transmission, other than me.
(The exception was a 1963 Olds F-85 wagon, which my parents bought for my younger brother. I took the 215 CI V8 — wonderful engine — out of Mom’s 1961 F-85 four-door and put it in the wagon, which I needed for a delivery route.)
The point is, it’s not that difficult, especially after the invention of synchrormesh, to drive manual transmissions. But if technology made that easier, I guess, why not go the next step?
Because, of course, it’s a matter of principle. My wife — a farm kid who never drove a tractor — had to learn to drive a stick shift after we married; that;s what I owned. My daughter, like me, learned to drive on a manual; to this day, the guys are still in awe that she can shift gears. (And, unlike my dad, I never made her survive the Stick Shift Moment of Truth — starting from a dead stop on a hill, in busy traffic.)
I now drive a used Dodge Dakota pickup, because that’s one of the few trucks that still offered a “standard” (as it used to be called) transmission. The 1964 Corvair that’s supposed to return to the road is a three-speed stick.
Bottom line: I will give up my manual tranny when they pry my cold, dead fingers off the stick shift.

Russell1932says:

May 17, 2014 3:40 am

My father was an above knee left leg amputee in 1918 at age 8. He learned to drive a stick shift using the hand brake and hand throttle on some early cars. He went to college and medical school often on crutches because of the lack of money for a prosthetic leg during the depression. He volunteered for service during WWII as flight surgeon at Kingman AAF Base Arizona. After the war he bought a new Oldsmobile fastback with the Hydramatic transmission. The new transmission technology made a huge difference in the quality of his driving experience. He bought another new Oldsmobile in 1952

Bob Krejcisays:

May 17, 2014 7:16 am

So we’re celebrating 75 years of stop-and-go, unintended acceleration, creeping at stop lights and making brake lights irrelevant? Three of my cars were rear-ended at traffic lights due to this inferior ‘innovation’. You might lose the clutch pedal, but you must contain the slush box by constantly braking! This is progress? I guess in 75 years, we’ll be celebrating the infosystem touch panels..all garbage

JFBsays:

May 17, 2014 9:56 am

As a teen during WWII, my late mother drove her mother’s 1938 Olds AST. In the years afterward, she drove many Olds and Pontiac Hydra-Matics. She said that the AST drove very much like the Hydra-Matic. There was a clutch, though, for starting, stopping, and shifting from “Neutral”. Though the idea was to start in “Low (1-2)” and shift to “High (3-4)” without having to use the clutch, she said that starting in “High” is what she and her mother always did, and the transmission would start in first gear and then shift to third and fourth, skipping the second gear. She said that it was hard to tell that second gear was being skipped. For passing, the AST would downshift (4-3) just like the Hydra-Matic.

JFBsays:

May 18, 2014 12:29 pm

My own first car was a ’53 Studebaker Commander Starliner, given to me by relatives. It was equipped with Automatic Drive, which must have been advanced for its day with its three forward speeds (though in normal “Drive” it started in second) and lock-up torque converter. And it did not creep at stoplights/signs: you could take your foot off the brake and it would not move an inch. An electrical device held the brake line pressure until the accelerator was depressed.